A huge percentage of the 'crime' that cities and their police and courts deal with are related to drugs. And it is going to be cities that eventually push for the decriminalization of drugs. The war on drugs by the federal government is as big a failure as prohibition against alcohol was. Thre can enver be a diminishing of crime if drugs are treated as a criminal matter. The drug wars merely set the people against the government. Some of the people are using the drugs, and they are working against the government. Another percentage of the people are complaining about the amount of money that must go into the repression and incarceration of so many people. A city would be better off in working at prevention, monitoring and control of the drugs in an organized and public way.
The only thing that the drug war has produced is exactly what all wars produce: violence, death, mayhem and destruction. Until cities wake up and realize the futility of fighting drugs, and begin to work at accommodating drugs as they accommodate liquor they will be beset with violence and costs and policing and repression. There is no escaping this reality.
 |
Cities would do well to recognize that since they can't not eliminate so-called social problems of drugs and gambling and prostitution it would be better to channel these things into one area. Which area? Why the very worst area of the city. Why? Because it would create the economic engine to bring these bad areas into a taxpaying and developed status. Every American city as some section which is decrepit and being abandoned. It would be best to create red light districts there and then channel all this activity into that area. It would be easier to justify the criminalization of the activity outside of the red-light district, and make it more likely that these activities are lessened over time as prevention efforts can be more readily targeted. xxx |
||
 |
By decriminalizing these social problems we would be creating an easier situation to deal with the problems. The problems of homelessness, alcoholics, drug addicts, prostitution and so forth are now currently hidden away, and looking for them uses half the resources we are throwing at solving these problems. By encouraging the afflicted to come forward without fear of incarceration we would be helping these people a lot sooner, easier, quicker and more practically with a bigger overall level of success. By sending off many young men in cities to prison for drug use we are forever creating an underclass that can never rise itself up. Sure, law and order sound good -- but in the long run it is self-defeating as we are going to have to deal with all the ex-cons -- who only return to the drug culture because that's all they can do. XXX . |
||
 |
Law and order against drugs is based on the religious ideals and the idea that the government knows what's best for us. All it does is set one part of society against another part of society. Yes, recognize that drug addictions are not good -- but merely locking people up will not solve, and more likely adds more to the problems. By dealing with drugs as a crime we are creating a permanent problem. By dealing with it as a medical or social issue we are going to help solve at least some of the problem It is unlikely that we will ever solve all of the problem. But to keep it safe, clean, free of violence, affordable and reasonable we are ending so many attendant social ills and any of the unintended consequences like too much police force and too much more money spent on continually keeping the people down. XXX . |
||
 |
By treating drugs like alcohol we will be acceding to reality. We would be saving money. We would be lessening animosity between different citizens. We would actually be earning more money for the city because instead of untaxed, uncontrolled underground economy we would actually have retail "drug" stores, and they wouldn't be that much different that bars and nightclubs. Indeed, the city could corral all the bars and nightclubs into entertainment districts, lessening these pressures on other neighborhoods. The policing of unruly behavior would be easier. Buildings which are now derelict would be brought on to the tax rolls. Streets formerly dark and dangerous, filled with furtive actions and a strong police presence would become well lit, productive places with a lot less violence. The billions of dollars spent on drugs would turn to a societal benefit instead of scourge. XXX . |
||
 |
 Drugs are really no morally different than alcohol. Or any mind alterating substance, however mild or strong. We can prescribe all sorts of mind altering drugs, we can sell alcohol, coffee and sugar and cigarettes are wholly legal and accepted. So it could be with marijuana and other drugs. Sure you want to keep people in moderation, but we cannot deny that mind altering substances have been a part of every culture from the beginning of time. Those who abuse these substances have always been around. But we also know that the vast majority of people use these substances with moderation and control. To say well, those substances are morally worse than these -- is wrong and is only part of an effort to control people for the mere sake of control -- because it is easier to contemplate control than fhe idea of freedom. XXX |
||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | |
